« Drawing Swords Over Mark Driscoll: Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary vs. Baptist Press | Main | Mark Driscoll & SEBTS: The Common Denominator Among His Defenders »

2009.02.13

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dan

Peter,

In what way am I to identify myself. I've given you my name and e-mail address.

Dan

peter lumpkins

THIS IS LONG. MUCH LONGER THAN I WANTED. YET DAN HAD SOME HEFTY CHARGES I HAD TO ADDRESS

Dan

You write, " if you are "forgetting" the "cussin'" you sure did a great job of bringing it back up for absolutely no reason. Of course, once was not enough, you had to mention it again later in this sentence, "If there is truth to it, then pulpit use of the "F" word must solicit significantly more than merely language a "little edgy for my tastes."

Fair enough, Dan. However, your assumption that I mentioned it in the body "for absolutely no reason" is just that--an assumption. The fact is, the defenders, almost in unison, have kept bringing it back up, and my statement you quote acknowledges such--"which, supporters insist, Driscoll has long ago put behind him."

You further query, "What are you unsure of?" I suggest you read the thread on the first post I published on this issue. There you will find several attempts to insist Driscoll repented. The only commenter who offered a source, I checked. If that's the alleged public repentance source for that about which I wrote, know that is the basis of my lack of certainty. If that doesn't satisfy, Dan, what can I say?

As for the second time I "brought it up," once again it was in direct response to a recent defense--namely, Alvin Reid. If the level of vulgarity is correct, then to describe it as "a little too edgy for my tastes" cannot be taken as anything less than white-wash. If you do not agree, Dan, I give you my express permission to do so.

You further write: "While I don't think urging married heterosexuals to pray about incorporating this is necessarily the wisest practice, I do not see, textually, how I can rebuke a heterosexual, married couple who does so. Scripturally speaking, it is none of my business or yours."

First, to place such an act in an "unwise" category rather than a moral one, Dan, is both strange and entirely inadequate. Are you suggesting there is no moral reasoning, embedded in biblical sexuality to warrant boundaries in this area?

Second, you conclude, "Scripturally speaking, it is none of my business or yours." Begging pardon, if it is none of my or your business, would you agree it's none of Driscoll's either?

If what you say is so, Scripturally, a large portion of the entire series Driscoll has online is Scripturally none of his business. Hence, if it's Scripturally none of his business, perhaps you need to say so, publicly admonishing him to take those things down which are Scripturally none of my, your or his business. Are you willing, Dan, to make such an announcement?

Next, Dan, you accuse me of misrepresenting SEBTS "in both what you write and what you omit."

First, how I can "misrepresent" when you actually state " You are probably right" is a new kind of criticism from which I rarely hear. I'm "probably right" nevertheless, I "misrepresent." Ummm...

Just because you can think of terms that will not pass the SEBTS filters any more than something found on Driscoll's site has jack squat to do with whether or not what I was suggesting was so or not. I quote you, here--"[I am] probably right."

And, while you could have simply pointed out such, instead you raised the stakes and chose instead to make your point a blatant charge, insisting I "misrepresented" SEBTS which, in my view, is drawing unwarranted conclusions.

Nor, Dan, is it relevant to anything I've written here to suggest I somehow "misrepresented" SEBTS because I overlooked a book Dr. Akin has written. I suppose I was also unfair to SEBTS because Reid wrote a book and I didn't mention it.

To suggest someone "misrepresented" another by what they did not say has got to be one of the silliest suggestions someone has offered to me of late, Dan. Sorry. By the way, for the record, I neither knew about nor have read "God on Sex."

You conclude, "The positons of the seminary faculty are more likely aligned with what he writes in that book than with any other source." I do not doubt this. Why, then should you not join those who've raised questions about Driscoll? Since you were aware of Akin's work and you've concluded SEBTS staff is undoubtedly in line with it, would it not be helpful to suggest the apparent discrepancy?

Let's move in a different direction. You quote me and then give your commentary: "'At the end of the day, husbands are to be about the business of pleasing their Lord and their Lord only. Wives are to do the same.' Uh, Peter, I fully affirm that husbands and wives are to relate to one another under the mutual submission to the Lordship of Christ. I do not affirm, however, that pleasing the Lord and pleasing one's mate are dichotomos. The Lord wants marriage to be pleasurable for both, and He wants husbands to please their wives and vice versa. A man who says, "I'm just gonna please Jesus" while thinking that means he doesn't need to think about pleasing his wife is a Biblical egg head."

First, Dan, why you chose to not take the entire section I wrote, but chopped it apart I find curious. Perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote and unintentionally butchered it. Or perhaps you were just overzealous in wanting to respond to me that you got a bit carried away. This makes some sense since you later commented on your "hope" of my alleged "corrective."

Whatever the case, my statement got butchered just the same, strangely leaving out a section in your commentary, a section detrimental to my point!

So, allow me to cite my entire comment--minus your annotations--in its entirety:

DAN: "At the end of the day, husbands are to be about the business of pleasing their wives and their wives only. Wives are to do the same."

PETER: "That is biblically incorrect. At the end of the day, husbands are to be about the business of pleasing their Lord and their Lord only. Wives are to do the same. A healthy biblical focus caters to the Lordship of Christ. Human relationships must wait their turn. But aren't human relationships important to fulfilling Lordship to Christ? Yes. But human relationships are only properly fulfillable in conjunction with, not contrary to, the Lordship of Jesus. Question: does the Lordship of Jesus in a man's life solicit from him prayers to heaven concerning sodomizing his wife? I think not."

Now let's take your annotations in turn:

1) " Uh, Peter, I fully affirm that husbands and wives are to relate to one another under the mutual submission to the Lordship of Christ. I do not affirm, however, that pleasing the Lord and pleasing one's mate are dichotomos. The Lord wants marriage to be pleasurable for both, and He wants husbands to please their wives and vice versa."

First, I was not alluding to "mutual submission" to the Lordship of Christ. Instead I was referring to individual submission to Christ's Lordship. Hence, the number one priority in a husband's marriage is the Lordship of Christ and the number one priority in a wife's marriage is the Lordship of Christ. If you have a problem with that, Dan, I think you need to take it up with Someone else. My pay-grade just doesn't climb that high.

Secondly, you affirm--in your own mind, I suppose--contra to me, that pleasing one's mate and pleasing the Lord are not "dichotomos" [sic]. I did not say they were. Nor did I remotely imply pleasing one's spouse is not indicative of proper Lordship.

In fact, I even made sure it would be clear (I thought) by prognosticating the question: "But aren't human relationships important to fulfilling Lordship to Christ? Yes. But human relationships are only properly fulfillable in conjunction with, not contrary to, the Lordship of Jesus."

Why you chose to overlook this in your annotations, Dan, only you know. Whether you intentionally or unintentionally gutted my meaning, it was gutted nonetheless.

Thus, the caricature at the end, remains just that--a caricature of what I actually said: "A man who says, "I'm just gonna please Jesus" while thinking that means he doesn't need to think about pleasing his wife is a Biblical egg head." Please read carefully before drawing such ridiculous conclusions.

2) "A healthy biblical focus caters to the Lordship of Christ." I think this is your own corrective to your overstatement above; I hope so." No, Dan. It was not a corrective at all. It was an attempt to be clear. Had you not prematurely ripped it from the final apart of what I wrote (which you omitted from your annotations) you would have had no reason to question whether I was offering a "corrective."

Moving on in the concerns you raised, you write, "It is clear you are not comfortable with sodomy. I have no problem with that. Indeed, we're on the same page. But, I cannot find a shred of Scripture to condemn a married heterosexual couple that does engage sexually in this way."

First, it is not about being "comfortable." We're not speaking of things that solicit embarrassed faces. For the record, Dan, I pastored over 22 years. I've counseled on sexual issues and, believe it or not, I've publicly read and preached the Song of Solomon from the pulpit.

Funny Mike seems to think I am some sort of sexually backward buffoon because I left some letters out of the links I posted. Interesting. For that too I "prognosticated" based on my experience with the internet community.

The truth is, no matter which way I posted those links, I predicted I'd get slammed for it. If I left them up, someone says, "You're promoting what you're condemning! Gotcha!" If I left some letters out, another comments, "Baptist preachers have got to be the corniest, culturally ignorant guys! Gotcha!" For me, it was really only who would first say something. Mike gets the prize!
Enough about me.

I write the above to say, for me, it's definitively not about "comfort." Nor is it about preference. Nor is it about proper (though decorum surely is in the mix). For me, it is moral. And frankly, Dan, that you can't find a shred of Scriptural evidence to "condemn a married heterosexual couple that does engage sexually in this way" assists in where you--and others--are coming from.

We've got two different interpretative grids at work here, which is not going to be settled on this post. In addition, there may be two different understandings of sola scriptura at work as well.

Suffice it to say, from my understanding, to attempt to work out every moral issue by doing a concordance search for an explicit Bible verse to back it up is a woefully inadequate hermeneutic.

As for the implication I "colored outside the lines" by employing rhetorical images may fit your coloring book, Dan, but it doesn't mine. Actually, I was asking for misstatements of facts, etc. Besides, I do not agree with your interpretation that critics have pumped out a "steady stream of Driscoll bashing." Hence, if you and Driscoll's defenders consider what I write as "Driscoll bashing" while coloring inside the line, how is it coloring outside the lines because I lament selling ""moral soul[s] for a bowl of nihilist pottage"?

The real problem, however, is not the above. Instead, it's your reading of what I'm actually writing. This is twice now I've had to correct you on this, Dan. Please be careful to understand what I actually write. I'll repeat the formula I used in your first misquote of my words:

PETER: "Fifth, you exhort, "resist the urge to make a blog or a response say more than it says." O.K. Where have I colored outside the lines?"

DAN: "Where have I colored outside the lines?" Well, many places. But your strong implication that Dr. Reid and others who have taken issue with the steady stream of Driscoll bashing are guilty of selling their "moral soul[s] for a bowl of nihilist pottage" should suffice as evidence."

The truth is far from what you say I said or implied, Dan. Here is what I actually wrote: "Neither I did sign on to a Conservative Resurgence then, or will I sign on to a Great Commission Resurgence now, which would sell its moral soul for a bowl of nihilist pottage."

First, this was the trailer to a larger point I was making in conjunction with Dr. Reid's very well-put focus. Though a staunch supporter of the Conservative Resurgence, Dr. Reid rehearsed all the things he did not sign onto such as "witch hunt," "Pharisaical legalism," etc, rightly suggesting this was not the CR's agenda. I agreed.

The point I took from Dr. Reid was not personal; he mentioned things persons do or believe--persons hunt for errors and persons believe moral legalism.

My point was exactly parallel to Dr. Reid's. As Dr. Reid made his list about what the CR was not supposed to be, I too made my list about what the GCR was not supposed to be--scuffed moral lens, unconscious antinomianism, sincere conscience, etc.

Thus, my cash point, I left at the end: "Neither I did sign on to a Conservative Resurgence then, or will I sign on to a Great Commission Resurgence now, which would sell its moral soul for a bowl of nihilist pottage." Note carefully, Dan, just as Reid was referring to signing on to a movement in his criticism, so was I referring to a movement in my criticism.

What you did, Dan, was fundamentally change my meaning. You charge, "your strong implication that Dr. Reid and others who have taken issue with the steady stream of Driscoll bashing are guilty of selling their "moral soul[s] for a bowl of nihilist pottage" should suffice as evidence."

In short, you replaced my point about not signing on to an impersonal movement, selling "its moral soul" with a personal condemnation toward Dr. Reid & others for selling "their "moral soul[s] for a bowl of nihilist pottage." You, sir, are dead wrong.

If you're going to quote me, please quote me accurately. Even more, don't change the meaning of what I write. In this case, you've made me to explicitly charge Dr. Reid & others of selling their souls. I most certainly did not do any such thing.

Incidentally, you've offered me the perfect illustration about precisely why I refuse to allow anonymous commenters on this site.

This post is getting much too long. I'm going to speed it up.

I acknowledge, Dan, that you don't like my alleged "sarcastic remarks." Reid's history is a perfect source to offer the illustrations for which I asked. Nor do I recall even attempting to be cute or "sarcastic" when I wrote it.

For me you do need a Gallop poll (or some evidence)--IF--you're going to make blanket statements about what Christians ask, and then make sweeping conclusions here.

In addition, you write,"I do not, however, believe the best pastoral approach is to dismiss a young adult beleiver's questions about sex." Nor do I. However, you've may have some tension with this and what you earlier suggested: "Scripturally speaking, it is none of my business or yours."

Last one: "Maybe answering them on the web is not the best approach, but I can stomach that more so than I can baptizing babies or proposing that a Baptist church accept for membership people who were baptized before their conversion." False dichotomy, Dan. There is a third way...

I hope this helps. With that, I am...
Peter

Chris

Peter, Thanks for bringing this to light. It is to our shame if we are not watchman in this day and age. You have herald the call weel my brother.

The comments to this entry are closed.